Study challenges `God gap’ in politics
A press release from the University of Florida reports on an interesting new study that contradicts the “God gap” theory in American politics – the widely accepted idea that religious, white Christians are conservatives who favor the Republican Party.
The study found that prior research defined who is religious with traits that lean toward evangelical Protestants, who tend to vote Republican. (These traits include Scripture reading and regular church attendance.)
But, according to researcher Ken Wald,“We sensed there was a style of religious attachment that is less individualistic and more focused on the social and communal aspects of people’s lives.” These Christians had a more sacramental outlook, and placed “helping others” over “avoiding sin.” Catholics and mainline Protestants, of course, and more likely to be part of the religious left.
The study, done by researchers from the University of Notre Dame, University of Cincinnati and University of Florida, says that this has political implications. According to Wald, “Having a strong communitarian view of faith is associated with voting for Democratic candidates. Because of favorable political circumstances, we’re in an age where we’re likely to see a flowering of the religious left.”
This study confirms suspicions that many people have had for a long while. But I’m uncomfortable with some of the assumptions. Judging solely from the press release, it appears that the study set up a false dichotomy between individual piety and community awareness–as if those who pray and read Scripture are individualistic, whereas those who go to Mass are not. Or even the assumption that those who attend Mass don’t bother with private devotions.
And what’s up with asking respondents to choose between avoiding sin and helping others? Perhaps in some hypothetical situation one may face this dilemma, but in the real world the two are rarely mutually exclusive.
The researchers criteria for identifying liberal religious peole are intriguing. What, for instance, does it mean to have a “sacramental” outlook? It seems to me that se of the purported definding characteristics of religious liberals are possessed by some conservatives, e.g., focusing on communal aspects of life. (consider conservative religious politicians themselves.) And how do the researchers define “religious”? Also, do these defining characteristics mean to define only extreme liberal a d conservative religious people? Most important, what do they mean by “religious”?
I suspect “religion” is a family resemblance term and so is indefinable. Still, one can settle on one or a few meanings and draw some legitimate conclusions using just those. Given a particular definition of “religious”, what would it be to NOT be a religious liberal? And NOT to be religious in the first place?
Semantic complexity, semantictic complexity!
Please forgive the typos. This phone is being very obstreperous this morning.
Regarding the so called “God gap”, why no mention of helping others avoid sin? Charity requires that we help each other get to Heaven. Christ Has Revealed to us through His Life, Passion, and Death on The Cross, that the fullness of Love, is desiring Salvation for our beloved.
Ann:
Good questions, all. I wonder whether the study itself has been published yet. If so, does anyone have a link for it?
On a side note, I remain mightily impressed, Ann, by what you can accomplish on a phone. No need to apologize at all. I have a hard enough time typing “obstreperous” on my standard keyboard!
Pace Nancy Danielson, but those who are more concerned about other people’s sins than their own, worry me a great deal.
Peace, Dcn.Brian Carroll, it appears you do not understand the meaning of each other. Love exists in relationship.
“Judging solely from the press release, it appears that the study set up a false dichotomy between individual piety and community awareness–as if those who pray and read Scripture are individualistic, whereas those who go to Mass are not. ”
I agree with Mark Jameson on this.
I’d extend the idea farther and suggest that we Christians need to resist the tendency of political parties to separate, divide and conquer us by appealing to demographics/psychographics that appeal to various subgroups. The message to both major parties must be, “if you want my support, you must embrace the whole enchilada of Catholic social teaching”
Mark -
Our emails seem to have crossed. Yes, individual piety v community awareness is s false dichotomy, and there are others implicit in these family resemblance uses of “religious”.
Istm that when dealing with these overlapping meani gs we need to settle on some one definion at a time (e. g. Of “religious”) and then define its specifications (e.g. “liberal” and “conservative”) by *clusters* of characteristics which might not be present in all individuals which are *called* liberal or conservative. Yes, this is classification by what things are *called* which seems to be nominalism at its worst, but in the case of family resemblance uses, once we admit there are exceptions to the purported definitions, it is nevertheless useful to employ such terms. At any rate, it seems to be a human characteristic to use language like this, which goes to prove that man is not an entirely rational animal. “Good enough” is our usual criterion of utility. Sigh.
Sorry, but despite its own limitations, the GOP is overwhelmingly the party of choice for most Christians (Catholic and Protestant) who “practice” their faith in a tangible, regular way (e.g., Mass weekly or more freuqently, reading Scripture daily, those who participate in Eucharistic adoration, etc.). The numbers speak for themselves, notwithstanding the spin.
The Catholic Church has historic and ethnic connections with the Democratic Party, but as that party sadly has embraced a secularist, culture-of-death agenda, many Catholics in recent decades have crossed over to the GOP or have become Independents. That trend will only continue to become more pronounced if the Democratic party keeps on the present course.
In saying that, I’m not criticizing or judging the motives of Catholics and mainline Protestants who are still loyal to the Democratic party. However, it is often true, at least in my experience, that Christians who do that tend to be liberal Democrats who happen to be Catholic, rather than Catholics who just happen to be Democrats, if you get my drift.
Democratic Party, but as that party sadly has embraced a secularist, culture-of-death agenda
It seems to me that a true “culture-of-life” agenda would concern itself not exclusively with abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia, and acknowledge that there is more to “life” than its beginning and end. So I wouldn’t consider the Democratic Party to have a “culture-of-death agenda.”
Wikipedia says, “A ‘culture of life’ is frequently supported in United States politics by social conservatives on moral issues (although commonly excluding opposition to capital punishment) and fiscal liberals on economic ones.” Actually, the issues the fiscal liberals are concerned about are as much moral issues as the issues the social conservatives find important, but I think we know what Wikipedia meant here.
I know many conservatives/Republicans think they are on God’s side and that liberals/Democrats are not. That is pure arrogance.
One of the problems with broad category surveys is that folks argue about them using simplitic mantras like “secularist,culture of death agenda.”
More helpful, at least in our Church, for a broad stroke is the Culture 1 and Culture 2 catholic divide, but we know that has its limitations.
Does anyone know what Ken Wald means when he says this?
“Because of favorable political circumstances, we’re in an age where we’re likely to see a flowering of the religious left.””
Does me mean that some religions thrive when one political party is in power, and others thrive when the othe party is in power? That notion seems a little strange.
Or does me just mean that the religious left is likely to exert more political influence now that the political left occupies the White House and controls both branches of Congress?
Another messure of “communitarianism” should include charitable donations. It is universally accepted that self-identified conservatives donate more than self-identified liberals in the united states ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html ). Perhaps the study only really finds what is obvious, that liberals (Christian or whatever) think the government should have a larger roll in income redistribution and welfare, while conservatives (again Christian or whatever) see that the responsibility for social welfare should fall on people of good will and not be left to the government. But isn’t this a tautology?
Leon Suprenant writes:
“It is often true, at least in my experience, that Christians who do that tend to be liberal Democrats who happen to be Catholic, rather than Catholics who just happen to be Democrats, if you get my drift.”
Mark Jameson replies:
Such an analysis cuts both ways. It is just as true that there are lots of Republicans who happen to be Catholic–or who are just as much “cafeteria Catholics” as their brothers and sisters who lean leftward.
It is never advisable to stand at a distance and judge the quality and depth of a stranger’s faith. I’m sure many of the Pharisees who conspired against Jesus were good, upstanding, patriotic citizens.
Leon:
Precisely.
According to a PEW report in May of 2009, most people identify as political independents: http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes
Taking an average of surveys conducted this year:
36% say they are independents,
35% are Democrats
23% are Republicans.
And that is with a personally popular and likable Democratic president!
I’ve enjoyed the comments you’ve posted on our study and wish I had time to answer them all. i think many of the comments reflect perceptual differences between a theological and a social scientific perspective. In any case, in response to requests for the paper, let me direct you to the Social Science Research Network where the paper is posted for free download:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451098
The larger point we’re trying to make is that there are different ways of being religious and that these styles are conducive to different forms of politics. When religiosity is equated with one particular form of devotion, it misses the political diversity of Christians. And it’s that failure that underlies the facile “red state/blue state” model of political competition or other variants of culture war theory.
Thanks again for your comments.
Ken Wald
“Sorry, but despite its own limitations, the GOP is overwhelmingly the party of choice for most Christians (Catholic and Protestant) who ‘practice’ their faith in a tangible, regular way (e.g., Mass weekly or more frequently, reading Scripture daily, those who participate in Eucharistic adoration, etc.). The numbers speak for themselves, notwithstanding the spin.”
Interesting definition of “practicing” the faith. I thought it was all about feeding the hungry, lifting up the poor, ministering to the sick and concentrating on a life of service to the beloved of God rather than service to one’s acquisitive instincts. Sorta like what Jesus did.